The U.S. Federal Highway Administration has just released a report that investigates the composite behavior of a geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) mass.
GRS bear strong resemblance to Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE). The two systems, however, are different in fundamental design concept. A GRS wall incorporates closely-spaced geosynthetic reinforcement in a soil mass to improve the engineering behavior of the soil mass, hence the term “reinforced” in GRS. On the other hand, a MSE wall uses reinforcement as “tiebacks,” i.e., as a tension resistance member to help keeping a potential failure wedge in place and preventing it from reaching a failure condition, hence the term “stabilized” in MSE. A GRS system typically has reinforcement spacing of 0.2~0.3 m to acquire significant beneficial effects of soil-geosynthetic interaction; whereas the reinforcement spacing in a MSE system is usually much larger (0.4~1.0 m) to reduce construction time, as reinforcement spacing has little effect in a tieback system.
The PDF file of the report is available through http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/169426.aspx.
Source: Transportation Research Board via email of Jonathan Wu
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls consist of facing elements, soil mass and reinforcement...
The Recommendations deal with analysis principles and the applications of geosynthetics used for rei...
In May's GeoStudio TechTalk - SLOPE/W Case Study: Stability of a Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall...
Join us for an in-depth exploration of slope stability analysis using PLAXIS FEM software. As civi...